Physics Challenge II: Bouncing out of the atmosphere

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a physics challenge involving a stack of balls dropped from a height, exploring the heights to which the top ball can bounce based on the number of balls and their masses. The conversation includes theoretical considerations, mathematical modeling, and numerical analysis related to elastic collisions and escape velocity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Participants consider the problem of n balls stacked and dropped, analyzing the height reached by the top ball based on elastic collisions.
  • One participant proposes treating the collisions as a series of interactions, leading to a recurrence relation for the velocities of the balls.
  • Another participant provides a formula for the velocity of the top ball, suggesting that the height is proportional to the square of the velocity.
  • There is a discussion about the significance of the height of the balls and the conditions under which they collide, with one participant questioning the necessity of the term for negligible height.
  • Participants express uncertainty regarding the impact of gravitational variation with height on the calculations.
  • One participant acknowledges their lack of recent experience with recurrence relations, indicating a need for further exploration of the topic.
  • Another participant congratulates others for their contributions, indicating a collaborative atmosphere despite the complexity of the problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints and approaches to the problem, with no clear consensus on the best method or the implications of certain assumptions. Disagreements arise regarding the treatment of height and the relevance of certain terms in the equations.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the gravitational acceleration may vary with height, which could affect the accuracy of their models. Additionally, there are unresolved questions about the initial conditions and the role of the negligible height in the calculations.

micromass
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
22,170
Reaction score
3,333
Part 1:
Consider ##n## balls ##B_1##, ##B_2##, ..., ##B_n## having masses ##m_1##, ..., ##m_n##, such that ##m_1\ll m_2\ll ...\ll m_n##. The ##n## balls are stacked above each other. The bottom of ##B_1## is a height ##h## above the ground, and the bottom ##B_n## is a height ##\ell## above the ground. The balls are dropped. In terms of ##n##, to what height does the top ball bounce. Assume the balls bounce elastically, assume there is no wind resistance, etc.

Part 2: Assume that ##h## is ##1## meter and assume ##\ell## is negligible. How big should ##n## be in order that the top one reaches a height of ##1## kilometer. How big should ##n##be in order that the top one reaches escape velocity? (Escape velocity is approximately ##11200~m/s##)

attachment.php?attachmentid=60972&stc=1&d=1376766983.png
 

Attachments

  • balls.png
    balls.png
    1.8 KB · Views: 697
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Seems trivial enough...

Treat the collision of the stack with the ground as a series of collisions. Ball 1 with the ground, ball 2 with ball 1, etc.

Let v be the velocity of the stack when the first ball strikes the ground.
Let vn denote the recoil velocity of each ball after colliding with the previous.

Because each collision is elastic and because each ball is much less massive than the previous, the center-of-momentum frame is approximately co-moving with the previous ball. In this frame, the impact velocity of ball i will be v + vi-1. Its recoil velocity will be identical.

In the ground frame, the recoil velocity vi = v + 2vi-1. This is a first order linear recurrence relation marred by the fact that it is inhomogeneous. In the case at hand, we can easily compute v and can easily run an iteration to compute the first ten or twenty values of vi.

In meters per second,

v = sqrt(2gh) = sqrt(19.6) ~= 4.42 meters/sec.

0 0 << Ball 0 is "the ground"
1 4.42
2 13.26
3 30.94
4 66.3
5 137.02 << Just under enough to reach 1 km
6 278.46 << Enough to reach 1 km.
7 561.34
8 1127.1
9 2258.62
10 4521.66
11 9047.74
12 18099.9 << Escape velocity exceeded by ball 12
13 36204.22
14 72412.86
15 144830.14
16 289664.7
17 579333.82
18 1158672.06
19 2317348.54

But this is a math forum. Numerical solutions are not as classy as analytical solutions.

I am rather rusty at solving recurrence relations and, in particular, in doing the change of variables that is required to make them homogeneous -- it has been about 35 years since we covered that material in school.

vi+1 = v + 2*vi
vi+1 + v = 2 * ( v + vi )

A change of variables to let v'i = vi + v should work.

So v'i = v'0 * 2i

The boundary condition that v0 = 0 means that v'0 ~= 4.42 m/s.

Then v12 = ( 4096 * v ) - v = 4095*v ~= 18100 m/s

This matches the numerical result.
 
Last edited:
A short version of the formula: ##v_i=(2^{i+1}-1)v## where ##v=\sqrt{2gh}##
Why do we have ##\ell##?

If the initial heights of the balls are h, 4h, 16h, 64h, ... above the top of the previous ball, you get a periodic system where each ball exactly hits the ball below it when this is at rest. This requires mathematical precision, of course...
 
Recall that I'm asking three questions, not only the speed.

1) Find a formula for the height in terms of n
2) What value of n causes the top ball to go higher than 1 kilometer
3) When do we reach escape velocity
 
Height is proportional to velocity squared, so ##h_i=\frac{v_i^2}{2g}## with ##v_i=(2^{i+1}-1)\sqrt{2gh}## => $$h_i=h(2^{i+1}-1)^2$$
This neglects that g depends on the height.

For (2) and (3), see jbriggs444.
 
mfb said:
Height is proportional to velocity squared, so ##h_i=\frac{v_i^2}{2g}## with ##v_i=(2^{i+1}-1)\sqrt{2gh}## => $$h_i=h(2^{i+1}-1)^2$$
This neglects that g depends on the height.

For (2) and (3), see jbriggs444.

Remember that only parts (2) and (3) say that ##\ell## is negligible, not (1). So there is a term ##\ell## missing. It's correct besides of this though.
 
Anyway, congratulations to jbriggs444 and mfb for their nice solutions!
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 125 ·
5
Replies
125
Views
20K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
13K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
13K